Chicago Pondering Huge Camera Network

andyring writes "According to ABC7 in Chicago, mayor Daley rolled out plans to install thousands of video cameras in public places across the Windy City. In some ways, I suppose there are positives, as all the existing and future cameras are tied in to the 911 emergency center, allowing a 911 dispatcher to actually watch the area in question when someone dials 911. Dispatchers will be able to control some of the cameras, such as panning and zooming in."

to stop all re-threads here

[Anonymous Coward]

1. privacy violated
2. big brother
3. evil big government
4. real time real world quake laser tag finally!

Privacy in public

[MikeMacK]

Some people are concerned about big brother invading their privacy but Mayor Daley says the cameras will be located in public areas.

So what does that mean, I can't have privacy in a public place?

The question...

[bloggins02]

... is not whether such moves are useful. Arguably, almost all privacy-invading programs are in some way.

The question is: do you trust the government (and the people that work for it!) to use it responsibly?

911 or 9/11?

[sultanoslack]

I suppose it will probably also be interesting for, uhm, the "national security" folks too. Great. ;-)

not in my back yard

[anthonyclark]

well, I had thought moving to the US would've let me escape pervasive closed circuit cameras, ah well...

The problem with blanket-covering an area with cameras is that after a while, the criminals simply go elsewhere...

Maybe it's like Go; we place our cameras around the country and slowly force the criminals into one little area and take it over?

About as absurd as thinking cameras will solve crime problems...

Where this goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually, they'll be able to tie these cameras into face recognition software-which will mean that anybody with a warrent out for them will have a _very_ hard time anyplace cameras like this are deployed.

Re:Privacy in public

[Hatta]

So what does that mean, I can't have privacy in a public place?

It means that next time there are protests at, say, a political convention in Chicago, they'll be able to track everyone down and arrest them. There will be chilling effects on our 1st amendment right to assemble.

Re:Excellent book: Transparent Society by David Br

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Last I checked, there was plenty of freedom before cameras even existed.

Stuff like this limits our privacy AND freedom.

And to ask the dumb question........

[ARRRLovin]

How will that let 911 operators do their job better?
How does *almost seeing* the situation help? I mean, granted, they're probably not going to be the crappy webcam quality cameras we think they are, but still it escapes me how this will actually proactively help an 911 operator help a victim. It might help them after the fact, but not before or during.

This doesn't bother me as long as...

[coyote_oww]

/flame-retardant suit on

This doesn't bother me as long as the cameras are completely public. That is, they are essentially web-cams whose content is recorded. Anyone can review any part of any recording. Anyone can make/keep their own copy of the video. CRCs digital signatures stored as "official copies" in multiple locations, etc. (e.g. some protection against screwing with the images after the fact.)

I like the idea of a transparent society. Let's be as transparent as possible - that is the best way to weaken entrenched power.

But then, I'm the guy who's number one desired feature on my next car is the ability issue tickets around me for bad driving. I want to be able to turn into a cop, only with the paperwork automated. Having full time camera on every inch of roadway is the closest I can get for the moment...

No, I don't value your "privacy" on public roadways. Its a public space. You don't get to be private in public. You have to play nice with the other kids.

I'll take off the flame-retardant suit in a few days. Maybe.

Re:And to ask the dumb question........

[Carnildo]

They'll get a better analysis of the situation. For example:

- Caller reports "There's been a major accident and there are bodies everywhere!"

- 911 operator turns on camera, notes that the involved vehicles have already been pulled off to the side of the road and nobody seems seriously injured, and only dispatches one ambulance and one police car.

Re:Privacy in public

[88NoSoup4U88]

As much can be achieved by photographing/filming them :
You could also replace the 'protestors' with 'criminals' and your point makes alot less sense.

I think placing cameras , if properly used by lawenforcements / third parties, can only contribute to cleaning up some foul areas (as seen from first hand experience , in a bad neighbourhood in Rotterdam, the Netherlands) and might come in handy when they are in fact used for 'inspecting the area/accident' in case of an emergency.

I'm all for privacy ; but it is, and will be , a -public- place : Then again, i think drastic measures like this, should only be done after the city has made a vote for it in a 'referendum' (i am not sure if this is an english word) ; more or less a poll amongst the citizens of the city.

We're creating a monster

[IvyMike]

Here's what scares me: all of the money rapidly being poured into surveillance today is creating an industry that will (obviously) lobby for more and more surveillance tomorrow. I don't see our freedoms stabilizing; I see the emergence of a business model that relies on stripping away our privacy.

And yes, I know that privacy has been eroding for a while, but it feels like it's getting much worse, much faster, now.

More scariness in Emerging 'Surveillance-Industrial Complex' Is Turbo-Charging Government Monitoring, ACLU Warns in New Report. [aclu.org]

Masks Illegal

[pentalive]

I wonder with these cameras springing up in more and more places and the spectre of face recognition software being added, I wonder if masks will become illegal...

With this stuff going on perhaps there is a need for a new fasion statement, Burkas for everyone (you know those head to toe concealing black robes with only eye slits covered by lace worn by women in the more "strict" islamic cultures)

Re:Fuckin' Daley

[lidocaineus]

While you are vocal, you are probably in the minority. Chicagoans seem to love the whole Daley persona, which entails everything from being "connected" (but always just shielded enough by placing plenty of people between himself and the others), to an admittedly hilarious speaking style. Basically, he's the tough guy, and he does a lot of placating efforts aimed at getting lots of public support for him (Chicago is *much* greener than it has been in two+ decades and definitely has a broader appeal because of it, property values have skyrocketed... almost too much in some areas)... so it makes all the shadyness around him more whimsical and laughable than threatening.

I know, it's strange, but he's got it down to a science.

You know what?

[TheDarkener]

I actually wouldn't have a problem with cameras in public places, as long as EVERYONE HAD ACCESS TO THEM. Think about it - if you could see what "they" could see, then it would take away a lot of the privacy concerns. Not all of them, of course, but at least the people being monitored would have access to the same information that "they" do.

Re:"Mayor Daley..."

[lidocaineus]

It's kind of hard to explain... all I have to say is that once you've lived here awhile (can be less than a month really), you'll understand it... and you'll either really really REALLY love him... or you won't. Not many fence-sitters in this town...

Re:You know what?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Yeah, I'd really love it if anyone, including burglars casing my house, could see to the minute when I'd left my house and when I'd got to work. I'd also love it muggers could see when I'd just visited an ATM and taken out a large chunk.

Try thinking for a change. It works for me.

Re:Privacy in public

[Cromac]

Some people are concerned about big brother invading their privacy but Mayor Daley says the cameras will be located in public areas. So what does that mean, I can't have privacy in a public place?

You can't have privacy or security. England has done the same thing, installed 4.2 million cameras, and according to this article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/08/31/constants urveillance.ap/index.html cameras only drop crime by 3-4% while installing lights dropped crime by 20%.

positives my ass

[nurb432]

There is no positive side to inavasion of privacy..

Yuu only *think* you will be safer as that is what the government has told you...

You will be no safer, and much less free.

Re:CCTV

[fuzzybunny]

You do, and it would bug me tremendously. There are a lot of shows on German TV (which we unfortunately get here) using footage from surveillance cams, to show evil-doers getting their just rewards, and showing private security and police types making snide comments and basically abusing their powers. A tremendous percentage of the clips they show are from cams in the UK--you can tell from the license plates on cars.

The most blatant one (don't remember the exact title, I turned it off after about 5 minutes of disgusted fascination) was something along the lines of "look at all these people doing embarrassing things caught on CCTV", like having sex in cars by the roadside, etc.

If that sort of shit doesn't adequately sum up all that can potentially go wrong with CCTV coverage, I despair of finding a more serious argument against it.

time for public privacy rights

[Doc Ruby]

The US pioneered the division between public and private spaces, with different rights in either. The 20th Century came and went, without updating our defense of our rights to accommodate the time dimension of these spaces. While public appearances aren't protected by privacy, we have come to expect freedom from recording without our knowledge or consent. Recording and playback were the major technological innovations of the last century. While our expectations of freedom have developed in that new context, the laws that document, and protect, those rights have lagged. We need to ensure that public information expires after a reasonable time, and can be accessed only through a reasonable process of law. This might be an application of copyright on our public image: our appearance is to be recorded and used only for the specific purpose for which we appeared, like safely travelling to work, or getting a tan at the beach. Otherwise the technology, and our use of it, threaten our freedom more than they protect it.

Choking on the hypocrisy...

[Remik]

I can't believe the hypocrisy here. If a Republican official tried to do this, it would be the end of privacy...every possible reference to 1984 would be made. But, since it's all done under the watchful eye of his majesty King Daley II, it's "I suppose there are positives".

The last thing Chicago needs is another pet project for King Richard to pour tax payer dollars into...we're still pulling our pants up after Millienum Park.

-R

Re:The Witness Program - Peter Gabriel & Human

[Dyolf Knip]

Absolutely correct on all counts. Injustice withers under the light of the minicam. Now, can you identify the utterly critical difference in how those cameras were used and how Chicago's cameras will likely be used?

The audience.

A video only has power if it's publicly accessible. If all the camera feeds go straight to Police HQ where they disappear into vaults forever, they will be, at best, totally worthless and more likely to be abused as others have described.

Re:Still privacy concerns

[tsg]

Why exactly would you need a camera to do that?

It makes it about a thousand times easier to do without getting caught. It also makes it possible to share the view with just about anybody you like instead of just describing it. It's worse by several orders of magnitude. And that's ignoring that nobody should be doing it at all, camera or not.

A cop parked in the same place would also see everything. So what?

Um, there's a world of difference between a cop and a video camera. It's a question of persistence and transparency. A cop is not likely to remember every single event that happens, only the unusual ones. A cop is much more obvious than a camera. And a cop can actually stop a crime in progress whereas a video camera can only record it. A cop is not likely to know the woman I am walking down the street with is not my wife, and "accidentally" tell everyone in an effort to discredit me should I criticize the government publicly. A cop is also not likely to remember every person involved in a protest against government policy. In short, the opportunity for a video camera to be abused is much, much greater than a cop witnessing the same event.

surveillance and stress

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that part of our constitution was to protect the interests of many without trampling the rights of the few. It seems to me that even if many people are interested in this, the few people who want freedom from monitoring of thier legal activities should not have thier rights abused like this. And yes it IS a right to not be harrassed by the police without due process. Even psychological studies have shown that people under surveillance are subject to higher levels of stress.
http://www.amrc.org.hk/Arch/3405.htm
Thi s is at work where some supervision of duties is already expected. Now we have to be subject to increased levels of stress when we get off work too?

Re:surveillance and stress

[gcaseye6677]

You don't have a constitutional right to not be under stress. So sorry, but thanks for playing.

Re:The question...

[smokin_juan]

Allow me to call up www.chicago.gov and watch any camera of my choosing and it might be usefull, otherwise it's horseshit. I don't even care for the ability to pan and zoom, just as long as i can see what they see. if this is for the publics benefit then let it be exactly that.

Let's make a deal!

[syukton]

How about this: You can have your cameras in public places if everything that they record is released to the public as well, free of charge.

Re:And to ask the dumb question........

[Anonymous Coward]

Having worked as a police dispatcher in a small urban center (in Australia) which had the CBD extensively strung with CCTV cameras this is exactly one of the uses they got used for. Also when people call in reporting a riot in progress, we could check whether there were 3 people or 30 involved before sending our officers into danger

It was also useful when we had, for example a bag snatch - with a rough description of the attacker, we could frequently track down the person concerned and recover the stolen property before it had been dumped in a rubbish bin.

In the early stages shortly after the installation, there were a couple of instances of inappropriate use of the cameras - zooming down clevage etc, but all the cameras were logged and audited from time to time, and after a couple of operators got fired, any others who wanted to misbehave got the message

Re:Privacy vs Safety

[tiled_rainbows]

This argument (cameras in public places don't violate privacy, because the public places are already public) comes up a lot, and it's one that has given me, as an instictive cameras-are-evil person, a fair bit of cause for thought.

I think the difference between, say, someone on the other side of a public square being able to watch what you're doing and someone in a control room somewhere miles away being able to watch watch you're doing, is that in the first case the degree of privacy and the potential for violation of privacy is pretty much equal: in a public place, sure everyone can see you, but at least you can see who's watching you, and watch them back.
One might argue that the problem with surveillance in public place is not that people in public places are subject to scrutiny, but that those doing the surveilling are not, and it is this imbalance that makes people feel uneasy.

So what might be interesting is some scheme where either the video feed from these surveillance cameras is made public, either on the 'net or via public monitors, or that all the CCTV control rooms are themselves monitored, with the video feeding through to monitors positioned at the public camera sites. At least then we would know who it was who was watching us.